↓ Skip to main content

El aumento de vídeos en directo publicados en redes sociales durante congresos de urología: es hora de reflexionar sobre sus ventajas y daños potenciales. Un estudio de ESUT-YAU

Overview of attention for article published in Actas Urológicas Españolas, December 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
1 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
El aumento de vídeos en directo publicados en redes sociales durante congresos de urología: es hora de reflexionar sobre sus ventajas y daños potenciales. Un estudio de ESUT-YAU
Published in
Actas Urológicas Españolas, December 2019
DOI 10.1016/j.acuro.2019.05.007
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Gómez Rivas, M.E. Rodríguez-Socarras, G. Cacciamani, A. Dourado Meneses, Z. Okhunov, M. van Gurp, J. Bloemberg, F. Porgiplia, E. Liatsikos, D. Veneziano

Abstract

Social Media (SoMe) offers excellent opportunities for scientific knowledge dissemination and its use has been extended in urology. However, there is controversy about its use. Live videos shared trough SoMe platforms offer many advantages, but at the same time disadvantages and potential risks including confidentiality, copyright infringement, among others. We aimed to assess the activity of shared videos on SoMe during urological conferences. A comprehensive study of videos shared on SoMe during European Association of Urology congress was carried out from January 2016 to June 2018. The online tools Symplur (Symplur.com), Twitter, Periscope and YouTube were searched to collect data. Number of videos, transmission time and views were analyzed. Videos were classified as live or pre-recorded and as scientific or non-scientific. SPSS V22.0 was used to process data. We identified 108 videos shared on SoMe, 292.42minutes of transmission, 67732 views. 79 of 108 (73%) were live streaming videos, 78 (72%) of which were considered scientific vs. 30 (28%) non-scientific. An increase was observed trough the years of study (2016-2018) in transmission time (p=.031) number of videos, views (p=.018) and live videos (p=.019) during the annual congress of the European Association of Urology. Shared videos on SoMe from urological conferences are increasing. These provide advantages for communication, scientific dissemination and expand the scope of conferences. However, there is potential risk of sharing information in real time; that could not be in line with the recommendations for appropriate use of social networks.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unknown 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 September 2019.
All research outputs
#8,605,564
of 13,716,038 outputs
Outputs from Actas Urológicas Españolas
#83
of 230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,246
of 246,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Actas Urológicas Españolas
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,716,038 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 230 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 246,011 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.